Mr. Joseph R. Bartylak
Executive Director
Land of Lincoln Legal Assistance Foundation
2420 Bloomer Drive
Alton, Illinois

Re: LSC Review of the Illinois State Plan

Dear Joe:

     Thank you for the timely submission of the Illinois State Plan developed in response to LSC Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6. The staff of the Legal Services Corporation Office of Program Operations (OPO) has thoroughly reviewed and discussed your plan in substantial detail. We have also reviewed and discussed the supplemental information that you provided to us in writing on May 25, 1999 and the information that you gave to me during my Chicago meeting with the Illinois project directors on June 7, 1999.

     Generally, we are impressed with the steps you have taken and will continue to take under this plan to develop an integrated and comprehensive delivery system that is designed to meet the present as well as the future needs of low-income persons within your state. We also very much appreciate the fact that the during the nine months that passed between the submission of the initial plan to LSC on October 1, 1998 and the preparation of this feedback letter, the Illinois planners continued their efforts to implement and refine their state plan. It is clear that the people involved in the development of the Illinois plan understand that the first cardinal rule of planing is to recognize that planning is a process and not a singular event. However, we do believe that several sections of the plan are weak (as identified below). And we are requesting that you provide us a supplemental plan that includes both measurable goals and actions steps, that designates responsibility for ensuring that goals are achieved in a timely manner and that responds to our concerns as delineated elsewhere in this letter. The supplemental plan should be submitted to LSC no later than June 1, 2000 should. We also ask that you provide us a status report as to your planning activities on January 1, 2000.

     In order to place our comments within a context, it is important to understand what we look for when we review a plan. First, a good plan provides for the statewide coordination of activities and services in the present while ensuring consideration of the needs of the future. In a valid plan, the efforts and activities of a state’s legal service providers are coordinated with each other. And with other providers of services to low-income persons and with funders to insure that: (a) no group or subgroup of low-income clients are excluded from securing and enforcing their rights within the civil equal justice delivery system; and (b) that all low income persons within the state are able to enjoy meaningful and appropriate access to the civil justice system. A good plan describes how this coordination of activities is taking place today and what changes the state delivery system will make in order to meet future needs.

     This plan (and the supplementary materials) does address how the Illinois legal services programs work together in a coordinated and integrated manner today and will do so in the future to develop optimal methods to deliver services to clients and a better product for clients. Moreover, this plan provides sufficient information as to how the legal needs of special populations of clients including clients who may not currently be adequately served by legal service providers and disenfranchised or unpopular client groups will be addressed

     Second, a viable plan presents the common goals, purposes, and values, principles and norms that underlie and support it in order to ensure consistency of vision and purpose. It spells out as early on as possible what the planners are attempting to achieve through their plan.

     Neither the Illinois plan nor the supplementary materials provided subsequent to the submission of the plan clearly set out guiding values and/or goals although some of the values and goals that drive this plan are implicit within the body of the plan. We do believe that it is important for the Illinois planners to clearly articulate, in subsequent submissions to LSC, what they are trying to achieve through this plan. For an example of what we have in mind, we refer you to the New Jersey plan. New Jersey established guiding values very early on in the planning process. These guiding values included: (1) a belief in the need for legal services programs to function as a "concerted, coherent, closely coordinated legal assistance delivery system"; (2) the need to develop additional resources to expand legal services; (3) the need to incorporate the views of clients and key partners in making major decisions about how to design and implement a system of high quality comprehensive legal services and (4) the need to target legal services resources to achieve the greatest measure of equal justice for clients and economically disadvantaged people. New Jersey then proceeded to develop each component of its plan to implement these overarching values. We recommend that you give thought to doing the same.

     Third, a valid and comprehensive plan is one that has been discussed with and/or reviewed by all individuals, organizations and institutions within the state that have a stake in the design and operation of the state’s system for ensuring equal justice. It is clear that the five LSC-funded legal services programs, the Chicago Bar Association and the Illinois Bar Association (through the Illinois Equal Justice Project) were involved in the preparation of the plan. However, it is less clear as to how other stakeholders such as clients and community representatives were involved in the planning process.

     Fourth, a good plan presents its goals both in terms of their measurability and in terms of who is responsible for ensuring their completion. Responsibility is either assumed or assigned. Perhaps more importantly, responsibility is shared between and among everyone who is covered by and included in the plan.

     In this plan, goals are not consistently presented both in terms of their measurability and in terms of who is responsible for ensuring their completion. Although it is clear that the five LSC-funded legal services programs will assume primary responsibility for implementing many sections of this plan with some assistance from the Illinois Equal Justice Project and although LSC believes that the planners are committed to implementing and evaluating this plan, the plan would be much stronger if each section of the plan contained measurable goals and strategies for how those goals will be achieved.

     Fifth, in order for a plan to be considered effective, the plan must demonstrate that all of the legal services providers were willing to look beyond single issues or a single program to examine the big picture in terms of client needs and organizational capacities in order to develop the best possible methods and mechanisms to address the present and future needs of clients within the state. A good plan for the statewide coordination of legal services presents concrete information as to what the legal services providers believe to be the major issues confronting clients and the client communities served by the programs, indicates how the programs can work collaboratively to respond to these issues, and spells out what the legal services programs envision for their collective future and for the future of their delivery system.

     This plan clearly demonstrates that, for the most part, the planners are seriously committed to developing the best possible methods and mechanisms to address the present and future needs of clients within the state. Plans for significant systemic changes in many of the sections are clearly placed on the table in the initial plan and many have already been implemented. However, the section on configuration stands out as the one section of the plan in which the planners did not approach their task from the vantage point of how the planners can work to create the optimal legal services delivery system in Illinois but instead devoted substantial time and energy to a stirring defense of the status quo.

     Sixth, a comprehensive plan will fully respond to all of the issues identified in LSC Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6. This plan responds to LSC concerns.

      This plan describes the state's efforts to develop coordinated, non-duplicative and effective legal service delivery systems of which the development of integrated and coordinated intake processes is an essential component. Client access issues are a very high priority to the planners as indicated by the fact that over the last ten years, the Illinois legal services programs have been experimenting with "a number of different ways to conduct intake and provide legal advice and brief services to eligible clients." In Cook County, the nationally recognized legal assistance hotline known as CARPLS makes referrals to and receives referral from the many legal services programs operating in Cook County including the Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago (LAF) and the Cook County Legal Assistance Foundation. LAF also operates a public benefits hotline for Cook County residents and guarantees to the thirty thousand clients who contact them directly each year for legal services that an intake specialist will interview them on the date of contact. Within the past year both Prairie State Legal Services and Land of Lincoln Legal Services Foundation (LOL)--programs that provide legal services through a number of multi-site offices in large geographical areas--have developed and implemented centralized intake, advice and referral hotlines (the systems will be on-line and functional in all of LOL's office by September, 1999). PSLS and LOL worked closely with one another (and with CARPLS) to develop their systems and they continue to share information and experience. Both programs also share client community education, preventative law and self-help materials that are mailed out to clients who contact them through their centralized intake components and are in the process of preparing a common training handbook for new staff that explains how the systems operate. West Central Illinois Legal Assistance (WCI)--the smallest program in Illinois--operates a domestic violence hotline and conducts intake both over the telephone and in-person for its walk-in clients.

     The plan itself lists no goals for this section. However, the activities described in the plan contain "implicit" goals--especially for PSLS and LOL-- and these goals have been achieved. We would be interested in knowing what goals the planners have set for themselves for the coming year(s).

     In 1997, the legal services programs created the Statewide Legal Services Delivery and Technology Working Group and charged this group with the responsibility to (a) improve the capacity of the programs to meet the legal needs of clients through the use of technology and (b) coordinate the development and updating of written client educational materials. This group developed a state legal service technology plan that was approved by the Illinois Equal Justice Project and all of the Illinois LSC-funded programs. The state plan lists four short-term and three longer-term goals, many of which have now been met.

     It is clear that the five LSC-funded legal services program in Illinois have benefited from a decision made several years ago by the Illinois IOLTA program to set aside a significant amount of money each year for technology. Each of the five LSC-funded programs now uses a common platform--Windows 95 and WordPerfect-- all have internet and e-mail access and all have unlimited access to computerized legal research. Computers are used for both casework and for administrative tasks. The technology-working group is now endeavoring to establish a statewide website. The website--which is a goal established in the plan-- will be used to distribute information on the services provided by the legal services programs, distribute client and community education materials, provide links to other non-LSC funded legal services providers and serve as a vehicle for training activities for both program staff and for the private bar. The technology working group has recently approached the Illinois Bar Foundation seeking funding to support this website and is "reasonably optimistic" that the proposal will be funded.

     Given that the planners have achieved many of the goals outlined in their October plan and have clearly developed a strategy to establish the website, the planners should give thought to where they want technology to take them in the next several years. For example, should the technology committee conduct site visits to assess the effectiveness of programs’ use of technology? Is there any value in developing plans for statewide computer training? Should the committee turn its attention to how technological changes can be coordinated with the courts especially in the area of pro se activities? Given that IOLTA is phasing out its investment in technology, how will the planners ensure that programs continue to upgrade hardware and software? How will the website be funded if the Illinois Bar Foundation does not support the grant application?

     The report describes in detail the barriers faced by low-income persons in Illinois in attempting to gain access to justice and efforts that have been made by the planners and other stakeholders--such as the Equal Justice Project--to address the identified barriers. This section of the plan includes four goals: to build upon efforts recently made by VISTA volunteers to oversee the coordination of the production and maintenance of self-help materials by establishing a permanent committee to handle this massive task; to produce standardized self-help materials for statewide distribution and use; to increase the overall accessibility of self-help materials (such as through on-line access); and to conduct research as to the best ways to deliver self-help information to clients. More information as to the progress that the planners have made in achieving these goals, the strategies that the Illinois planners will employ to meet these goals and when the planners envision that these goals will be addressed should be provided. We also recommend that given the size of the state of Illinois and the strong reputation enjoyed by many of the programs in the areas of community legal education and client self-help activities (as well as the existence of the Self Help Center at Southern Illinois University), the planners consider expanding their goals to include more systematic experimentation with and evaluation of the usefulness of self-help clinics and materials and the development of a coordinated statewide community legal education strategy.

     The report describes in detail the state's work in this area and leaves no doubt in the reader's mind that many of the LSC-funded programs within Illinois have the provision of quality legal assistance to clients as their highest priority. For example, the Equal Justice Project has, in the past several years, addressed the issue as to how assistance could be provided to clients to gain greater access to the courts through the use high quality preventative legal education and advice. The five LSC-funded programs within the state also put a high priority on delivering high quality training in a wide range of substantive and procedural areas for staff and private pro bono attorneys. The state has a number of statewide substantive taskforces, publishes and distributes (with the help of VISTA volunteers) a newsletter for program staff and supports the Poverty Law Project, which publishes a newsletter on substantive poverty law issues. Future plans include a statewide conference for all legal service providers within the state and the electronic publication of the Illinois Legal Services Directory.

     We would recommend that the state give serious thought to other methods to coordinate and integrate the provision of legal work and training throughout the state including, for example, developing statewide protocols to ensure consideration of and responsiveness to the needs of special client subpopulations, developing an integrated statewide public information/relations initiative, developing additional and coordinated statewide training activities, and developing a policy for sharing and loaning staff among and to other programs. We understand that some of these activities take place among and between several of the LSC-funded programs but if the state is going to establish a seamless delivery system absent program configuration, activities and initiatives in which all programs participate must be established.

     As with other sections of the plan, this section is less a plan than it is a report on previous activities. Measurable goals and action steps are not provided.

     The plan describes in detail how pro bono services are delivered throughout the state. The Illinois Pro Bono Center, a division of the Illinois Bar Association, was created by the bar to increase the number of clients who can be served by existing pro bono projects and to identify areas of need for which new projects need to be created. Generally, pro bono services are provided through volunteer lawyer’s projects that link volunteer attorneys with low-income clients although several rural counties do operate a "judicare" program. Some attorneys also participate in legal/pro se clinics and others fulfill their pro bono obligation through speaker bureaus, through training activities and through mentoring. The plan describes two projects "unique" to Illinois. The Southern Illinois Regional Family Law Pro Bono Project matches volunteer attorneys with volunteer law students from Southern Illinois University School of Law to handle family law cases. The other program, located in western Illinois, uses a panel of attorneys to handle cases in which the legal services program has a conflict. The information provided after submission of the plan describes a third unique project which, when implemented, will use corporate attorneys working in conjunction with legal service attorneys to provide telephone advice on food stamp issues.

     This section of the plan identifies no weaknesses with the present system and develops no new strategies or goals for the coming year(s). The plan does set out six aspirational goals that are taken directly from the Illinois Equal Justice Report. None of these six goals include action steps, none are measurable, and responsibility for achievement of these six goals is neither assigned nor assumed. The plan would be strengthened by a discussion of how each of the legal services providers within the state deliver services to clients using private attorneys, a discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the different models currently in use and a discussion as to how pro bono activities will be strengthened, when and by whom.

     This plan and the supplemental materials identify resource development as the state's highest priority. Unfortunately, despite intensive and impressive efforts to acquire both a state appropriation and filing fee dollars, the legal services programs in Illinois have been unsuccessful in developing a state revenue stream. The LSC-funded programs have been more successful in attracting non-state sources of revenue. For example, the five programs organized a joint venture to successfully apply for funds from the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services to provide legal services throughout the state for children with special education needs. The programs also file a joint application to VISTA for six VISTA volunteers who help to implement the state plan. Other sources of funding include foundations, United Way agencies, Title III funds for services to seniors, IOLTA and private donations. Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago, LOL, and PSLS are also in the middle of private bar campaign and Cook County Legal Assistance Foundation has recently hired the Fundraising Project to help the program develop a fundraising plan.

     According to the plan, overall funding for legal services in 1998 was approximately 30 million dollars with 47% coming from LSC. However, these figures include all of the legal services providers within the state of Illinois (there are approximately 35 providers within the state; five receive funding from LSC). Among the LSC-funded programs the percentage of LSC funds in relationship to total budget is as follows: Cook County Legal Assistance Foundation--56%; Land of Lincoln Legal Assistance Foundation--62%; Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago--59%; Prairie State Legal Services--50%; and West Central Illinois Legal Services--50%.

     This section of the plan develops no new strategies or goals for the coming year(s). The plan does set out four aspirational goals that are taken directly from the Illinois Equal Justice Report. None of these four goals include action steps, none are measurable, and responsibility for achievement of these four goals is neither assigned nor assumed.

     The legal services system in Illinois consists of five LSC-funded programs that provide clients with a full range of services and 25-30 non-LSC funded programs that offer services to select groups of clients, to select communities, or who use private volunteer lawyers as their delivery system.

     The planners feel very strongly that no changes in the configuration of the LSC-funded programs are needed and that no changes are desirable. The plan makes an assumption that LSC is considering one of two scenarios--merging all five programs into one huge statewide program or merging West Central Illinois Legal Assistance (the smallest program) into one of the other four programs--and then spends sixteen pages trying to persuade the reader that neither of these two scenarios makes sense. The planners believe that reconfiguration should occur only if savings are be achieved and/or services to clients are improved. After examining present systems and considering their two scenarios, the planners determined that reconfiguration would have no benefits anywhere in the state noting that Illinois is so unique that only the present configuration of programs makes sense. Further, the plan concludes that the present configuration is efficient and effective and meets the needs of clients. It is interesting to note that the defensive tone of this section of the plan causes the reader to wonder whether the planners seriously explored reconfiguration with an open mind.

     We recommend that the planners reopen their consideration of the configuration of the LSC-funded programs and address the question as to what would be the optimal structural configuration for Illinois legal services programs if the planners looked at the big picture in terms of statewide client needs and the efficient and effective delivery of quality legal services throughout the state (taking into consideration the existence of both LSC-funded and non-LSC-funded programs).

     To be candid, we believe that a thorough review of this plan leads to the almost inescapable conclusion that while reconfiguration may not be a front-burner issue within this state, there is merit to seriously exploring reconfiguration of the five LSC-funded programs into three. Two questions come to mind when this section of the plan is read. The first question is whether the services provided by the smallest program within the state would be stronger and the effectiveness of the entire legal services delivery system strengthened if WCI was merged with one of the other larger multi-county, multi-office legal services programs. Both LOL and PSLS operate large programs composed of regional offices that serve urban, suburban and rural populations. Both programs have developed systems and strategies designed to ensure that all of their clients have access to high quality legal services and that their various regional offices function well together. It seems obvious that given their experience with administrating and operating multi-office programs, it would be relatively simple for either of them to incorporate WCI as another regional office. The second question involves Cook County Legal Assistance Foundation and whether there is value to seriously re-exploring the merger of this program with the Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago.

     Assuming for the sake of this letter that the existence of five LSC-funded programs continues to be the model in Illinois, work remains to be done if the five programs are going to be able to function as a highly coordinated and integrated system. As with other sections of this plan, the seven goals in this section of the plan are highly aspirational and lack concrete and measurable action steps. For example, goal #5 indicates that the programs will "continue efforts to provide training for staff with statewide events, whenever feasible". The term "feasible" is never defined nor are we given any information as to who will make the decision of feasibility, funding is soft, we are given no information as to what training needs the five programs have identified as "high priority" and assignment of responsibility is vague.